Super Fast Object Seen, Possibly Satellite, Angular Velocity 4.5 degrees per Sec, Insane

originally posted by: horatio321

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: horatio321

It would look like a satellite going over. About as bright as one too. What color was the light? White? Or a different color?

White - here it is zoomed right in...

you could estimate the speed assuming a height of 100.000 feet and knowing the camera shutter speed.

these a slight possiblity you may have captured a sprite or blue jet or related event?

originally posted by: Phage
7.85 mi/sec = 28,260 mph.
Not orbital.

Escape velocity. Maybe we really do have a secret space program.

a reply to: Blue Shift
Or maybe it was a meteor.
Or maybe it wasn't 100 miles high.

Not a lot of information to go on.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift
Or maybe it was a meteor.
Or maybe it wasn't 100 miles high.

How low does it have to get before we start seeing clear details? It's apparently higher than that.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Clear details on a light in the sky? Depends on more information which we don't have.

It's apparently higher than that.

Why?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

Clear details on a light in the sky? Depends on more information which we don't have.

It's apparently higher than that.

Why?

Or we would have clearer details. Maybe it's a glancing meteor that didn't really leave a debris streak. Seems unlikely. Maybe its a bug, but we'd have a lot better chance of determining that if it was closer to the viewer. And since there didn't seem to be any noise associated with it, particularly given the apparent speed, that kind of rules out most conventional aircraft. That leads me to think that it's not a small, low-flying bug or seed pod or something like that, because we'd be able to see that.

I don't know what it is, and likely never will. As I have said many times about images, they're not really proof of anything other than at some point some photons hit a sensor in a camera. Then they live forever on the Internet.

originally posted by: horatio321

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: horatio321

I've seen these too . Roughly 2009.

Thanks for letting us know. Do you mean in 2009, or you have seen two thousand and nine of them?

LOL

a reply to: Blue Shift

I rather have a few excited pixels than deal with one of those eye witness reports.

Don't put too much emphasis on sound. Sound at a distance does odd stuff. Photos travel in a direct path, well except when swamp gas is involved!

Meteors are a few seconds at best. To follow some thing for a few seconds and high up implies someghing that was in orbit. Maybe some old space debris burning up.

a reply to: Woody510

Nah. I've thought about it a few times, just to watch the brains explode, but not worth it. Heh.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Blue Shift

I rather have a few excited pixels than deal with one of those eye witness reports.

I know that human perception often isn't great. But to completely dismiss it is just unreasonable. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know that when I look up into the sky, I can pretty much tell most of the time at least when something is low and when it's way up there.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Blue Shift

I rather have a few excited pixels than deal with one of those eye witness reports.

I know that human perception often isn't great. But to completely dismiss it is just unreasonable. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know that when I look up into the sky, I can pretty much tell most of the time at least when something is low and when it's way up there.

The visual sighting threads are endless and are generally worthless.

Analyse, synthesise, realise.

Before I reply to anyone personally, I'm going to have to put this down

It's easy to get hung up on what we don't have and I'm well out of my comfort zone here, not being an astronomer and all that. But guess what people? We lucked out.

In the photo, not only do we have the 'object', but we have Jupiter, and a couple of stars just to the left of the object - Yed Prior and Yed Posterior, which are separated by 2 degrees in the vertical. The Object is almost exactly half of this. It totally checks out. So the object in the photo is Azimuth 185, Elevation 34 and in 1/5th of a second has tracked 1 degree!! That's 5 degrees/sec - which was pretty close to my initial guestimate and I'm happy about that.

No - we cant see number plates or the surface finish of the object. But we can rule out a load of stuff that it isn't - so take heart.

Phage is likely right that it isn't orbital, but it's still very likely to be in space - which may rule out satellites then. It was silent, left no trail and felt like a satellite - so according to my judgement, was in space.

We don't know the altitude - it's sheer speculation - if it tracked at a sensible velocity, we could play with altitudes of between 100 - 250 miles. A quick comparison to the ISS, which tends to track around 1 degree/sec which is 0.2 radian/sec at an altitude of 250 miles @ 5 miles/second. The object would therefore have to orbiting at 20 miles/sec, which wouldn't fit the orbits we use for any type of satellite.

originally posted by: suicideeddie
these a slight possiblity you may have captured a sprite or blue jet or related event?

No, I don't think so. I saw it track in a fast, straight line for 15 or so seconds.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Woody510

Nah. I've thought about it a few times, just to watch the brains explode, but not worth it. Heh.

Cough...cough..Woomera..cough...cough.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

Clear details on a light in the sky? Depends on more information which we don't have.

It's apparently higher than that.

Why?

We don't have altitude, no. But we have other details. Someone with the correct software could overlay Stellarium star map and gridlines with the photo to at least show the angular information.

If it was in the atmosphere, we'd better hope it's ours!!

I'm more inclined to think it was in space though. It didn't deviate from it's North - South orientation which again makes me think artificial.

a reply to: gariac

Cell phone cameras are like 30mm lens on a 35mm camera. That would make anything longer than 1/30th kind of suspect if handheld. But your photo doesnt look blurry, so I am a loss here.

I aim to please. I take some pretty nice shots when I put my mind to it :p I'm pretty steady with a rifle, too. It was set on a long exposure because it was dark - but boy, do you have to keep steady.

My phone camera has a "pro mode." I can set the expose time to 1/5 second. Just taking a few shots, i cant get anything sharp handheld.

Not all cameras are equal. There's a knack to keeping the camera steady but I was rushing so bad to get the phone opened, unlocked, camera on etc etc I'm amazed it came out as good as it did. Especially getting the 2 stars Yed Prior and Yed Posterior. Bear in mind also that the full moon was out too, thus the sky was bright and stuff was even harder to shoot.

a reply to: horatio321

This 1/(focal length) is a well known rule for hand held shots. Some cameras will use the accelerometer to electronically compensate. (EIS rather than OIS).

generic hand held rule

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: horatio321

This 1/(focal length) is a well known rule for hand held shots. Some cameras will use the accelerometer to electronically compensate. (EIS rather than OIS).

generic hand held rule

Well that's pretty close then, as the camera I used has a focal length of 4.1mm and the shutter speed was 1/5th.

a reply to: horatio321

Woomera's pretty remote but it's still used by parts of the ADF for exercises - been out there a couple of times. Also, if you were to track inland there's a pretty large training area.

The last semi-acknowledged thing that was tested out there was the Taranis drone.